Nuclear debate

October 19, 2009

Every few years, the nuclear energy debate resurfaces. It’s one of those issues that won’t go away and climate change is likely to keep it there for some time.

Now we have a new poll, published here, showing that more people are warming to the nuclear option. But Australia seems split right down on this issue. While 49 per cent think it should be one of the country’s potential power options, there are 43 per cent who oppose it outright. So what direction should we take?

Let me declare my hand here. I am ambivalent about nuclear power. On one hand, demand for energy is soaring at a time when global warming is forcing us to reduce our greenhouse emissions. Rising seas, freakish weather and melting polar ice caps mean we need to look at all options, from renewable energy to nuclear. On the other hand, nuclear plants, for now, only come in one size and they take a long time to build so there might be a problem with the economics. Then there is the issue of what we do with the waste, not to mention claims that people living near nuclear plants are more vulnerable to cancers. Some examples include the debate around the Sellafield plant in England, sites around the US and of course, Chernobyl. And finally in an age of terrorism and global tensions, we should all be concerned about nuclear proliferation. So while the everyone else seems to have strong views on the issue one way or the other, I am still working through it.

Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy Professor Leslie Kemeny argues that the nuclear option is critical for tackling climate change and quotes Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change who said: “I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy.” Former New South Wales premier Bob Carr says we need a debate around the issue, Bob Hawke says we should not rule out the nuclear option. He is joined by former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans who says Australia should store nuclear waste.

But the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the Labor Government will not support it and has ruled it out.

But Dr Mark Diesendorf, deputy director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales, says we need to invest in renewable energy, not nuclear power. “If our governments could muster the political will, Australia could replace all its dirty-coal-fired power stations by 2030 with a mix of measures to reduce unnecessary electricity demand and to expand low-carbon energy supply. On the demand side, efficient energy use and solar hot water are economical now over much of Australia. With a carbon dioxide price in the range of $40 to $50 per tonne, wind power could grow rapidly to supply 20 per cent and bioelectricity to supply 8 per cent of electricity by 2020. In Europe in 2008, wind power provided the largest contribution of all new generating capacity. In China, wind power capacity has doubled every year for the past five years. Such a rapid growth rate cannot be achieved by coal or nuclear.”

Should Australia embrace nuclear power as one of its energy options? Or should it instead focus on renewable energy? What are the risks of taking the nuclear option? Or for that matter, the risks not taking it?

Post a comment

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Recent comments

owen

October 19, 2009

09:25 AM

In answer to your closing questions:
No;
Yes;
Expense, pollution, terrorism, disaster, locking ourselves into an archaic technology that doesn't last very long and leaves you with (literally) a huge pile of concrete once worth several billion dollars;
None or sarcastically put, the absence of said Nuclear risks!?!

charly

October 19, 2009

12:51 PM

Apart from other considerations, any major piece of infrastructure like a nuclear power station is these days a target for naughty people. A nuclear plant is just a headache for the future. I can't see any other conclusion but to move towards distributed infrastructure, including energy.

Chris

October 19, 2009

12:58 PM

Lets not forget that 100 years ago we relied on the wind to power the ships we depended on for international trade. That wind was not very dependable and we moved to fossil fuels. Becoming dependant on the vagaries of mother nature for our energy supplies is taking us back to those times. Unless we want to get used to regular blackouts we're going to have to build a lot of surplus capacity into the system.
However unless we can find a way of storing the waste, nuclear doesn't have all the answers either.

Patrick

October 19, 2009

01:04 PM

People could be using "green nuclear" energy in their homes within three years harnessing the heat generated by natural nuclear activity deep beneath the central Australian desert.
There are plans to pipe high-pressure hot water from the granite bedrock four kilometres beneath the Queensland-South Australia border, where the slow decay of potassium, thorium and uranium generates temperatures as high as 300 degrees.
In doing so this process could send electricity to the national power grid by 2010 and later directly to western Sydney. By 2015, it could produce as much electricity as the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme.
Some scientists say hot-rocks technology could soon deliver huge volumes of economically viable power, thanks to the continent having the hottest and most geologically favourable granite deposits on earth.
According to a conservative estimate by the Centre for International Economics, Australia has enough geothermal energy to meet electricity consumption for 450 years.
The granite in South Australia's Cooper basin contains "fractures" that hold super-hot, high-pressure water. It could power a steam turbine then recycle water back into the bedrock for reheating.
The greatest impediment to the renewable energy industry is that the nation's electricity is among the cheapest in the world, thanks to huge deposits of high-grade coal.
But geothermal energy is expected to be economically viable after a moderate cost is imposed on greenhouse gas emissions.
Geothermal energy would produce one megawatt of electricity for about $45 an hour - compared with coal power of about $35.
The Prime Minister's taskforce on nuclear energy estimated the cost of nuclear energy at $40-$65, "clean coal" at $50-$100 and photovoltaic solar energy as high as $120.

paulh

October 19, 2009

01:40 PM

I'd rather live next door to a nuclear power station than a coal-fired power station.

Supreme Pizza

October 19, 2009

02:19 PM

Common sense dictates that we debate all the solutions. Lets not be blinkered. Renewable energy also has its environmental and economic impacts. Lots of moving parts and environmental issues relating to wind power. The best solution is to do them all. As the science and economics and environmental impact is proven then focus on that solution. Diversification and compromise remains the right choice. If you really want to solve the environmental issues then 'get off the planet'! Earth = finite resources. Universe = infinite resources. Lets consider a long term plan to colonise space. Bring back the Oneal concept.

TonyG

October 19, 2009

02:45 PM

a) Nuclear (ie. fissionable Uranium) is a FOSSIL fuel, made during a quasar explosion billions of years ago!

b) Each power reactor needs over 100 tonnes of 3-5% enriched Uranium per year, or about 5,000+ tonnes over it's lifetime. Now consider 1,000 such plants around the world (1,000GW of capacity) and you need an enormous amount of natural Uranium which is 99.3% U-238 to get the required amount of reactor-grade fuel given the low levels of fissionable U-235. It just doesn't exist in those amounts! Breeder reactors that can produce more fissionable Plutonium (a highly toxic long-lived pollutant) than they consume U-235 are a disaster and there are NO working examples, ANYWHERE. So we spend ENORMOUS (use Google to check out the reactor being build in Finland) amounts of money for a

Oh, and by the way, burning 3.5 million tonnes of coal/year in a thermal power station releases more radioactivity than any existing fission reactor. It's a by-product that the power industry doesn't want you to know about.

John D

October 19, 2009

05:11 PM

"Trust us! We know what we're doing," say the people with a vested interest in Nuclear power.
Then again, the people at Storm Financial, Lehman Brothers, etc, said the same thing. As soon as someone says those words, a warning flag should immediately go up.
Hind-sight is a wonderful thing. But a bad nuclear power experience is not something that I am prepared to learn a hind-sight lesson from.
The more you look into "nuclear," the more you realise that we should stay clear of going down that path. Don't just take my word for it - read everything that you can about the subject. The more you know, the more you realise that those people saying, "Trust us! We know what we are doing," are just seeing the $$$ they can make out of it, and to blazes with the consequences.
That's my 2 cents worth.

Jacq

October 19, 2009

05:24 PM

1. There has not yet been found anywhere in the world to safely dispose of nuclear waste (there are ships full of it off the coast of nations around the world with nowhere to dock - and it also gets dumped illegally in developing nations like Tibet and the Sudan that can't do anything to stop it);

2. Nuclear waste is deadly and lasts for many hundreds of thousands of years;

3. There is about 30 years of uranium suitable for nuclear power left in the world, then it's over - and we would still have global warming, and (if we pursue nuclear power) no renewable energy. 100 000 years of deadly waste vs. 30 years of supply of a dodgy resource when we can have renewable energy instead...hmmm, tricky decision! NOT.

The answer is no, we don't need it; yes we should embrace renewable energy instead; the risks of taking it up are enormous, stupid and not worth taking; and when we have renewable energy available, there is no "risk" in not taking it. The nuclear industry would have you believe NP is necessary and essential - but in truth, it's a desperate industry piggybacking onto the climate change debate in a pathetic, dangerous last attempt to be relevant and viable. Don't be sucked in. Cheers, J.

Peter

October 19, 2009

06:00 PM

Nuclear fission is last century's nasty legacy. Nuclear fusion is next century's gift.

In the meantime, we have to find other ways to stop burning stuff for power.

Bruce

October 19, 2009

11:34 PM

Nuclear Power should be part of the mix as it does not make a significant contribution to Green House gas e missions and is base load unlike wind power and solar power systems.I think the various leaks from Nuclear Plants in various countries have been overplayed.Well designed and operated plants are no more difficult than a coal fired power station.China isbuilding coal fired power stations at an unbelievably fast pace and these will be operated for many years.It is madness and creating huge Climate Change problems now and more in the future.More efficient use of energy must also be a part of the solution.

masterphysicist

October 19, 2009

11:40 PM

In all the preceeding comments, as well as the article, one assumption is made, which is that a fission reactor must necessarily be powered by uranium. This uranium must then be enriched to a usable concentration of U-235, create long-lived transuranic waste isotopes which then must be disposed of and can be used to make nuclear weapons.

Something I haven't seen in any articles or debates on the subject is a discussion of the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is another chemical element, and it can be used to generate nuclear power through fission, but has some important differences to uranium.

Firstly, it's neutron yield is so low that it cannot go supercritical - you can't make a bomb out of it. You can't even make a thorium reactor undergo meltdown without really wanting it to.

Secondly, it does not need to be enriched, as the isotope that is most fissile is the one that is super-abundant - it maes up over 99.9% of natural thorium.

Thirdly, since thorium is a lighter element, it makes negligible quantities of heavy transuranic waste. Sure, it makes some, nothing's perfect. However, the waste from a thorium plant is dangerous for centuries, rather than millenia, and there is much less than that produced by a comparable uranium plant.

And the most awesome bit is, the correct reactor design can cook down the waste from a uranium plant into the same waste that a "regular" thorium plant would produce.

Australia has the world's largest proven thorium reserves, the technical knowledge to build and operate one exists already, and so all we need is the political will. However, it would be nice to see some exposure of the technology in the media for once.

JEQP

October 20, 2009

01:47 AM

I was ambivalent too -- until I treated energy like any other industry. I think we produce too much garbage because we don't factor in all the costs, specifically all the costs of storing the waste. I did a thought experiment once calculating how much space a styrofoam cup would take up and for how long, and then working out the rent on that. The rent was very small -- but it was more than five times the cost of buying the cup...apply that reasoning to nuclear waste and I have to come down squarely against it.

Patrick brought up one option -- another is wave power, where Australia is a world leader. Another profound change would be to simply reduce the amount of energy we use -- if I understand correctly most of it is in business and industry so that's what should be focused on.

Mick K

October 20, 2009

02:00 AM

We should consider all options including renewables (such as wind) and nuclear power. But we must keep in mind that to date the most common forms of renewable energy being wind and solar can only supply about 20% of our base load due to the variability of their supply reliability (e.g. calm or cloudy days). So alternative options such as nuclear must be seriously considered to supply the other 80% of base load requirements if we are to reduce our dependence on coal fired power stations.

shaby

October 20, 2009

04:56 AM

You guys are a joke. Look at the latest technology. 4th generation nuclear power plants not only reduce residual to zero, they also allow for 3rd second and first power plants to take their 'tailings' and they can be consumed by the reactor process. Please keep up with technology if you are going to comment on it. Subscribe to some 'real' science podcasts and you may learn something.

Peter

October 20, 2009

05:20 AM

In the pursuit of increasing standard of living as we all do and enjoy. There is going to be an insatiable appetite for energy. You just wait until the tide of humanity from China and India all wanting to own a car and have their own LCD TVs in their lounge rooms.

To not embrace the nuclear option now would be a hopeless solution when you consider that wind and solar only provides 1-2% of base load power. So we are not even comparing apples and pears here. There are no viable options at the moment to compare the power output of nuclear other than dirty coal and gas power generators.

AS for the nulear waste issue, most readers have not kept up with the current advances in nuclear technology the so called fourth generation nuclear power reactors, or fast reactors (google this, please) which have the ability to re-use much of its nuclear waste and generates significantly less waste that last for decades, not thousands of years, then stored it safety without any environmental impact.

knowledge is power

October 20, 2009

06:11 AM

I find it interesting that whenever the "nuclear debate" turns up again, the nuclear lobbyists seem to position it as "either or".

In their world view there seems to be only one answer; and their technology is it. Whereas with renewables, there are a range of good options from large scale to small. All options exist from power station scale to distributed power.

When solar power is mentioned people often think of solar photovoltaics or roof panels . There are actually a number of viable solar technologies on offer. One of them, solar thermal is little understood. Solar thermal can provide large scale power, and people need to know how it works, so they can understand there are genuine alternatives to coal and nuclear for utilities scale power.

They all produce steam to turn a turbine that produces electricity, but solar thermal does it with clean energy, is safe and requires less security measures.

Yes. We should have a couple of dozen plants - and get rid of the transmission lines. The new nuclear power plant designs, particularly the French designs, produce less waste and lower level waste than Lucas Heights. Nuclear has killed a fraction of the number of people than coal. I am sick of greenies thwarting the development of Australia - because their beliefs are based on prejudice and not actually look at the facts.

Kes

October 20, 2009

07:43 AM

One of the comments here says that common sense requires that we look at all options. To me this is a very strange kind of common sense. How is it common sense to use an energy generation method that creates unspeakably dangerous waste that lasts pretty much forever? To argue that common sense requires we look at all the options, including such dangerous ones, is taking the ideal of being open to all possibilities, way, way too far. As far as I'm concerned, true common sense would have us wiping nuclear out of the discussion as a completely untenable option, and focusing our attention and energy on energy efficiency, and renewables.

Bonester

October 20, 2009

08:40 AM

Absolutely no nuclear power for Australia!

Other nations are trying to get away from it where possible (other nations are also stopping water flurodation but that's off topic...)

What do you do with the waste?

How do you store it perfectly forever?

What do you do with the old plants after they have reached their service life of 50 or so years?

Do governments really want to be able track the power output of the plants with rises and falls in infant mortality rates?

Solar, geothermal even wave action have to be better ways and probably cheaper than the phenomenal cost of a nuclear plant.

M

October 20, 2009

08:53 AM

Nuclear power may turn out to be perfectly safe and necessary Ė but we simply donít need it yet.

Focus now on the huge list of things we can easily and economically do to address GHG emissions: energy efficiency in industrial processes and commercial buildings, energy efficiency standards on appliances and lighting, solar hot water, fuel efficiency standards for road transport, biodiesel, distributed micro gas turbines with cogeneration and trigeneration, destruction of fugitive methane from landfill and wastewater, destruction of fugitive methane from underground coal mines, 20% renewable, and more.

These measures will give significant reductions up to 2020.
Simultaneously, work on clean coal, geothermal, cheaper gas generation, and whatever else. Come 2020, if we still need nuclear then implement it.

thubleau

October 20, 2009

09:07 AM

Nuclear is the only way to go unless by some miracle we commit to building massive solar plants.
A recent visit to France confirmed how ugly wind power generators look and how thousands of them blot the landscape over there and yet do not even produce one tenth of the power used by France.

clean coal is a myth and the government is just using the ignorance of Australians to lead them up the garden path on this issue.

Bite the bullet and go nuclear unless someone out there has invented a small miracle to solve our power generation needs.

Enviro

October 20, 2009

09:16 AM

Have we learn ?
Use clean Solar Power . Using Nuclear Fusion will be worst that oil in the long term .

peter

October 20, 2009

09:49 AM

I trawled through a lot of newspaper articles to find out about the cost per MW to build solar thermal and nuclear. I used actual costs of actual projects:

Solar thermal: 0.5 to 6.6US$Mn per MW to build.

Nuclear: 2 to 5US$Mn/MW to build + 2.5-7.5US$Mn/MW to decommission.

Solar thermal is cheaper by half because the decomissioning is much simpler. The running costs are also smaller (obviously)

Rex

October 20, 2009

10:07 AM

It frustrates me that people keep perpetuating this myth that nuclear power stations "only come in one size". It's rubbish. Don't forget a large portion of the US navy is nuclear powered. Also check out the developments being made by Hyperion: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

Dan

October 20, 2009

10:25 AM

We have the opportunity to make Australia 100% sustainable in Green Power FOREVER.
That is an option envied by every other country because they are stuck with nuclear or coal at least until fusion power becomes viable. Fusion power won't happen until 2050 ..if at all. Why do we continually throw opportunity away. ?

Craig

October 20, 2009

10:26 AM

I find it frustrating that the anti-nuclear lobby has to make its point through scaremongering and distortion of the facts and science. As some comments correctly pointed out, there are now far more efficient, safe and effective nuclear power plants that cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons. Any new plants built today would be nothing like the plants built in the past.

Another comment mentions the so called influence of the 'powerful' nuclear industry or nuclear lobby... umm, what industry or lobby? It just doesn't exist in Aus, so where's the influence? Who's going to make the money here? (Now the coal lobby... there's an influence.)

No doubt the spectre of nuclear accidents will be a point of debate. Let's look at these disasters in perspective.

The worst nuclear accident in the US was Three Mile Island in 1979. Despite the clean-up costs, there were no fatalities or injuries, and long term studies indicate no higher risk of cancer in the exposed population (and yes, it's patently untrue that ppl living near reactors have higher levels of cancer).

Then the worst accident of all time, Chernobyl, caused 56 deaths. But the same accident couldn't happen in any reactor built today. Firstly, Chernobyl was a very early design with a lack of safety features. Secondly, the disaster occurred because a worker performed a high risk test which involved shutting off coolant during a shift change, when nobody else knew what was going on. So the cause was an early unsafe design combined with insufficient training and gross negligence. So let's keep it in perspective.

And Leon, could you please explain 'bioelectric' power generation? I've never come across this term, and a quick Google doesn't shed any light.

Craig

October 20, 2009

10:35 AM

While the science behind the latest generation of nuclear reactors is sound, my concern is the cost and timeframe. At around $2-3b per plant, with a 10-15 year leadtime, this is probably not the best option for the short term.

No, our best bet by far is to build a large solar array in one of the sunniest areas in the world - the Australian desert!

Take the cost of 2-3 nuclear power plants (say $5-8b) and throw this into creating a vast solar array in the desert. This would achieve ALL of Australia's power needs with zero emissions (after it was built, obviously) and little ongoing cost.

The cost of solar power would reduce exponentially with economies of scale - 95% of the cost would be in initial setup. It would get progressively cheaper as time went on.

So what's stopping us? Nothing but political will. Political will and the coal lobby. We could so easily fix all of Australia's energy needs in 10-15 years for $5-8b AND set up Australia as a world leader in solar energy.

lachM

October 20, 2009

10:56 AM

Technologies to supply stable base load power are coal, gas, hydro, biofuels nuclear and geothermal. Solar, wind and tidal all require base load backup or storage such as pumped hydro or batteries. Nuclear generates 15% of global electricity in about 440 reactors with 40 under construction, 131 planned and 282 proposed. Nuclear is part of the global mix, like it or not. There have been great advances in safety and efficiency with Gen III and coming Gen IV reactors. Realise that the question is only whether Australia should include nuclear as part of its CO2 reduction plan - most of the rest of the world has already decided. Let's get over the hysteria and propaganda and have a reasoned debate based on substantiated facts. People who quote scary scenarios or false statistics without evidence or authority are unethical and should be challenged and exposed.

realist

October 20, 2009

11:00 AM

Nuclear is far cleaner than coal-fire electricity generation, and we'd be stupid not to consider it. It's ironic that those who cry the loudest about doing something the issue of climate change and global warming and those most opposed to the very technology that has the most impact on reduce greenhouse gas emissions - nuclear.

nicho

October 20, 2009

12:15 PM

Let's see now.
(1) The problem is too much CO2
(2) We need to generate power without emitting CO2
(3) Renewables can do this but the technologies aren't mature enough for cheap, reliable baseload power.
(4) Nuclear power produces almost no CO2
(5) Australia has massive proven reserves of both Uranium and Thorium.
(6) Throw a rock anywhere on at least half this continent and you'll hit a piece of geologically stable desert that's perfect for drilling a hole and burying the nuclear nasties.
(7) Do this right now, and you buy enough time (at least 100yrs) for the renewable technologies to mature.

Why is there a debate on this ?

M

October 20, 2009

12:41 PM

Craig said

"Take the cost of 2-3 nuclear power plants (say $5-8b) and throw this into creating a vast solar array in the desert. This would achieve ALL of Australia's power needs with zero emissions (after it was built, obviously) and little ongoing cost."

That really is rubbish - I'd be very surprised if you could even build the transmissions lines required for that cost.

$5 - $8 billion would put a solar hot water system on a large proportion of roofs in Australia (but that would probably only replace 1 large power station)

There is no magic bullet - just lots of little things that all add up. Do all the easy stuff first and see where the R&D takes you

Ben

October 20, 2009

01:06 PM

People are overly concerned about Nuclear waste i think ,i used to believe it .

Lead , asbestos ,Cadmium , Mercury and Dioxen have half lives of infinity and are just as dangerous as most radioactives after a year :-)

In terms of waste there is tons of lead , lead paint , asbestos etc which has orders of magnitude more impact than Nuclear waste. The most dangerous nuclear radiation is used in Medicine ( Cancer and x rays).

For storage like just put it in concrete in a mountain its no more dangerous than lead in the water supply. In fact storage of Nuclear waste is trivial and made hugely over expensive due to political sensitivities. Maybe we should remove all things with infinite half lives first .. I mean atomic bombs have been detonated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but life there now is little impacted .

Renewable industry is a joke ,China is making better solar cells and windmills than we ever can at a tenth of the price and we are reaching efficiencies close to theoretical limits. I saw whole farms in holland where 50% of the Windmills were not functioning as the subsidies did not cover repairs. The idea of going renewable to encourage an industry is a fallacy as we are not and will never be a manufacturing nation and there is little money (on a national level) in non medical research.

That said non Tokamak fusion research should be a priority.

Banning Air conditioning in homes is probably a better idea than renewable energy.

paul

October 20, 2009

01:25 PM

Australia is the Lucky country. We are spoilt for resources choice, we are culturally innovative and value highly the rich diversity of our homeland. Through conservative and judicious management we are emerging in good shape from a Financial crisis.
My point is we should be choosing carefully and wisely using all the innovative skill we can muster to develop the the wide range of choices we have. There is so much potential in wind- emerging, wave- untapped, solar-thin film will soon revolutionse, geothermal-planned, gas-expanding, Hydro-proven. All viable with minimal impact to our treasured land.
Neuclear represents an old (highly technical) solution with a long lead time to be operational and risky consequences.
Keep it Simple Keep it Real!

Rob

October 21, 2009

01:23 PM

Australia had the opportunity to be involved in the international research program to develop a Nuclear Fusion reactor at ITER ( www.iter.org ).

Unfortunately the government of the time declined to get involved, preferring to spend the limited research funds on the "Clean Coal" snake oil.

Knowledge is power

October 21, 2009

04:45 PM

Australians seem to know little about their own. Homegrown technology like the solar thermal one developed by Dr David Mills is still not being fully acknowledged or appreciated in this country. We have world leading scientists in a range of renewable energies, yet they are still not taken seriously enough.

It has happen before, lack of vision for the future. What will the future look like in fifty years from now?
Think about that for a moment!
Wind energy became outdated hundred years ago with the onset of the industrial revolution.
If we like it or not, the future will be in utilise high density energy forms.
The biggest threat to the planet is ideological blindness and misinformation.

Why is there so much support for wind and solar? Simple, it is called money.
Oil and coal companies love it, they know, as long as we try implementing renewable energies they will stay in business but planet will lose.
Ultimately, the consumer / taxpayer will pay for this as it becomes plainly evident if you look at Denmark or Germany and that with very little benefit for the environment.

Only a real effort developing real solutions will help a planet with vast environmental differences and 6.5 billion people.

The best anybody can do is get informed but not by people that have no idea, have a hidden agenda or are ideological disadvantaged.
A good start is Professor Barry Brook - http://bravenewclimate.com/about/ or Patrick Moore (environmentalist); the internet libarates informatio but you have to lern to filter incorrect and misleading information.

Phyllis

November 01, 2009

11:36 AM

A few points to ponder:

1. the BEST (monocrystalline PV) solar panels are no more than 15% efficient.

3. Silicon panels need to be able to reliably track the sun for maximum yield (adding to system complexity). Also surface contamination (dust) can severely affect performance. In contrast to "perceived wisdom" silicon is not a "fit and forget" solution.

9. Bulk power transmission is costly, prone to climatic disasters, and inefficient. Local generation is more transmission - efficient.

10. Small plants are less efficient than larger plants (irrespective of the technology), in the same way that smaller IC engines are less efficient than larger IC engines.

11. Wave power (once again pioneered by the UK) can work, but cost of installation is significant, and maintenence horrendous (moving parts in the most corrosive environment on the Planet!).

12. Fourth Generation nuclear is a useful short-term solution (i.e. one or two Generations) whilst "other" technologies are investigated.

13. Fusion: STILL awaiting break-even!

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Leon Gettler is a contributor to The Age, specialising on management issues. His interests include business ethics, corporate governance and the intricacies of the US Sarbanes-Oxley ruling. He is the author of two books, including Organisations Behaving Badly: A Greek tragedy of corporate pathology, which focuses on the forces that lead smart executives to make dumb decisions.